Woman sues UF fraternity brothers for videotaping sexual encounter

[Blue Skies]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I have drilled into my daughters' (18 and 16) heads all kinds of rules to live by that are designed to 1.) make sure they are safe and 2.) help them make choices which demonstrate self-respect. It's tough raising girls in this culture which seems to put such a premium on sexiness.

I plan to do the same with my boys (5 and 6) - and also include what I think are behaviors which demonstrate respect for themselves, and for the young women they will someday date. I hope they will be fraternity men, and I hope they will treat all women as well as they would want men to treat their sisters. "Boys will be boys" just won't cut it.

ITA, and I also like your idea of having sororities tell their new pledges NOT to go upstairs...very wise advice.

College is such a huge adjustment in terms of learning how to live independently. I honestly think that the freshmen coming in (especially the girls) could benefit from better organized advice about how they can have fun but stay safe as well.

As for the girl in this story...exactly how drunk was she not to notice the big lump in the other bed? What did she think it was...a pile of dirty laundry? Yeesh!

[EE-BO]

Well said ZTAngel. I think we are on the same page after all.

[CrackerBarrel]

I would assume that the plaintiff is suing for intrusion. Seems to me that you could defend that she didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy since most fraternity houses have rooms where multiple members live and the person who filmed seems to have been the roommate of the young man having sex with her. Does she have a reasonable expectation that he would not be in his own room at night? I don't think so.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

I would assume that the plaintiff is suing for intrusion. Seems to me that you could defend that she didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy since most fraternity houses have rooms where multiple members live and the person who filmed seems to have been the roommate of the young man having sex with her. Does she have a reasonable expectation that he would not be in his own room at night? I don't think so.

That's a defense I'm sure will be raised.

But that there is an adequate defense doesn't make a case frivolous.

My counter would be that first, unless she felt she was alone, she wouldn't have become physically intimate with the defendant, that her expectation was reasonable because the door was locked, a "do not disturb sign" was hung outside the door, other facts, etc.

I would also raise the public policy argument that if such a defense was allowed, it would be like giving carte blanche to anyone in a communal living situation to videotape the intimate acts of their cohabitants.

[srmom]

I obviously have no dog in this fight But, I'll put my two cents in.

I have no issue with her suing the two boys, and by extension, their parents' insurance companies. After all, it is the two boys who invaded her privacy and embarrassed her; they are the ones who did the damage, and if she feels that the sentence levied upon them by the justice system was not enough, then SUE AWAY! But, I do have a problem with her suing the fraternity. Obviously, the entire active chapter was not a party to the harm, neither was the alumni base or the advisory members. So, why should they be a party to the suit other than in an attempt for the plaintiff to try to extract the greatest monetary judgement, and the fraternity has deeper pockets than the parents.

Having been a party to various suits, I know what a huge pain in the ass it is to be involved - depositions, astronomical lawyer fees, etc., not to mention the worry and stress that accompanies being named (unfairly!!!) in a suit. Background - we own a company that has been named in suits, even though we had nothing to do with the problems, we have always eventually been dropped from the suit, but in the meantime, we have spent money that should have gone to the company to hire lawyers to defend our GUILTLESS position, and spent sleepless nights worrying about the costs and end results.

So, while the case against the fraternity might not legally be frivolous, it is going to cost them alot of money and energy to fight it.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by srmom

So, while the case against the fraternity might not legally be frivolous, it is going to cost them alot of money and energy to fight it.

Just based on what I have seen here (which granted may not be the whole story, or even close to the whole story), I'd say that the case against the fraternity may indeed be legally frivolous. Why not sue UF while they're at it?

[Tinia2]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Just based on what I have seen here (which granted may not be the whole story, or even close to the whole story), I'd say that the case against the fraternity may indeed be legally frivolous. Why not sue UF while they're at it?

i was just reviewing some of the cases i or family members have been involved with and thought of just the same thing. perhaps could be added on later. and if this happened within a dorm room, i would have been surprised if the school had not been served. in this case, from what little we have seen of it, the chapter and fraternity could be looked at as a entity separate from the school.
added edit: found this news link http://www.gainesville.com/article/2...14581/0/news03
which includes this: "The 20-year-old woman filed a civil lawsuit Tuesday in Palm Beach County. She seeks more than $15,000 in damages from Ben Farias, 21; Kyle Kraft, 20; and the UF chapter of the Delta Tau Delta fraternity for invasion of privacy and other offenses."
"The suit claims the fraternity failed to adequately supervise its members, based on previous incidents there.
The same year as the taping, UF’s chapter of Delta Tau Delta had incidents in which two underage students drinking at the house were sent to the emergency room, according to UF records.
The fraternity received a social suspension through fall 2007 and was not allowed to recruit new members in spring 2006 and fall 2007, those records show. Orlando said the fraternity is currently in good standing."

is the proper term prior bad acts? and if so, or something similar, seems as if they are coming back to haunt them.

[SWTXBelle]

$15,000 in damages doesn't seem very high at all - anyone with more experience in these matters care to comment?

And if Delta Tau Delta had previous problems at the house, what would/should they have done in terms of closer supervision? I realize you can't prevent all idiotic behavior - but if there is a history of problems with behavior that could open the chapter up to liability issues I'd think SOMETHING - education, supervision, SOMETHING -could be done. I hate to see any GLO in a position of having to deal with this kind of problem.

[la_boca_loca]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

$15,000 in damages doesn't seem very high at all - anyone with more experience in these matters care to comment?

In a Florida tort action, the plaintiff does not pray for a sum certain. The plaintiff only pleads that she seeks more than $15,000, the jurisdicitional threshhold for the circuit courts.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Just based on what I have seen here (which granted may not be the whole story, or even close to the whole story), I'd say that the case against the fraternity may indeed be legally frivolous. Why not sue UF while they're at it?

I don't really see the connection to the organization either, but then again, I know only what has been printed in the papers.

[srmom]

Just for the sake of clarity, it appears to me that the suit is against the two members and the chapter, not the fraternity

That's why I said

Obviously, the entire active chapter was not a party to the harm, neither was the alumni base or the advisory members. So, why should they be a party to the suit other than in an attempt for the plaintiff to try to extract the greatest monetary judgement, and the fraternity has deeper pockets than the parents.

Who will be called in to give depositions? The president of the chapter? Other officers? The voluntary chapter alumni advisors? Who will pay for the legal fees for all those people? If it is them, individually, then that is patently unfair, and just plain sux.

And, ultimately, if the chapter's "powers that be" decide to settle because it is just too damned expensive to fight a lawsuit, who will pay the judgement? Since this chapter is part of a national fraternity, I'm assuming that the liability insurance or umbrella policy is bought through their national headquarters, so regardless of whether the "national fraternity" is named, the payout will come from monies paid by the chapter to nationals for whatever insurance fund they have. This will cause the insurance rates for every chapter of this organization to be raised (possibly, depending on their carrier), thus, all are affected.

I may be totally wrong, and each individual chapter buys their own policies, but somehow I doubt that. Let me know if I'm wrong.

[Tinia2]

the answer that i can give you involves a criminal, rather than civil, case.
and i could be wrong but i think in general the system works somewhat the same.
yes, everyone was called in to have a conversation with at least one branch, if not more, of law enforcement. members of the house including officers of course, administrators from the school, chapter advisers, alumni, and national.
yes, it did suck. but it is part of our legal system.
violations of rm does not have to be part of our system. however judging from comments made elsewhere in rm, seems as if some just to not wish to understand and get that point. and thus we all will pay in one form or another at some time or another.

Originally Posted by srmom

That's why I said

Who will be called in to give depositions? The president of the chapter? Other officers? The voluntary chapter alumni advisers? Who will pay for the legal fees for all those people? If it is them, individually, then that is patently unfair, and just plain sux.

And, ultimately, if the chapter's "powers that be" decide to settle because it is just too damned expensive to fight a lawsuit, who will pay the judgment? Since this chapter is part of a national fraternity, I'm assuming that the liability insurance or umbrella policy is bought through their national headquarters, so regardless of whether the "national fraternity" is named, the payout will come from monies paid by the chapter to nationals for whatever insurance fund they have. This will cause the insurance rates for every chapter of this organization to be raised (possibly, depending on their carrier), thus, all are affected.

I may be totally wrong, and each individual chapter buys their own policies, but somehow I doubt that. Let me know if I'm wrong.